My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2015 10:53:14 AM
Creation date
3/6/2015 10:41:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/23/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, February 23, 2015 <br /> Page 15 <br /> Mayor Roe noted that, when the change was made to County Road C, the design <br /> allowed sufficient space to add more lanes in the section south of City Hall if and <br /> when indicated. <br /> Mr. Lux noted that Ramsey County had fielded a few calls on this as well; and <br /> while not supporting increasing County Road C to four lanes, there had been <br /> some talk at the County level about restriping to make the turn lanes longer, <br /> which he would discuss further with City staff. <br /> Regarding the service lane east of Snelling, Mr. Culver noted that lanes had been <br /> reduced past Lexington Avenue. Mr. Culver also noted another issue was that <br /> during winter snow and ice events, traffic typically used only one lane versus two <br /> if they couldn't clearly see the lanes. <br /> Mayor Roe concurred. <br /> Do we have enough land for a potential change to3 lanes north of County Road <br /> C-2 <br /> Mr. Lux responded that while the right-of-way was wide enough, there would be <br /> some impact to landscaping in place along that route. However with the lack of <br /> accidents along that stretch, Mr. Lux advised that the County's attitude was to <br /> wait and see, while continuing to monitor the situation. Mr. Lux opined that con- <br /> cerns at the County level included if the intersections at County Road C and D <br /> were freed up, things may get worse at Lydia Avenue and County Road D. How- <br /> ever, with relatively little impact in creating a center turn lane, Mr. Lux noted this <br /> may be something to keep in mind in the future as further monitoring occurred. <br /> Projecting impacts of development and how projected as part of analysis. <br /> Mr. Vaughn referenced the ITE trip generation rates and leveraging past experi- <br /> ence on future expectations as part of the analysis. Mr. Vaughn used a past expe- <br /> rience in Roseville, and the potential to shift traffic patterns and volumes, through <br /> utilizing data after project improvements were in place, the actual calculations had <br /> supported the modeling performed. Mr. Vaughn stated that, while the studies <br /> were not always spot on, they had proven to come very close to reality as indicat- <br /> ed by past experiences;and stood in support of his work based on that track rec- <br /> ord. <br /> Looking at time savings or differentials, came up with County Road C-2 con- <br /> nection several years ago <br /> Mr. Vaughn advised that he based this on today's experience in traveling the cor- <br /> ridor and then with Twin Lakes Parkway in place, opining that his instinct would <br /> be to not take the Parkway but to get further north to avoid back-ups at I-35W. <br /> However, once the managed lane was in place on I-35W, Mr. Vaughn opined that <br /> traffic flow would continue to improve and would not result in the same situation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.